DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1 – 20, drawn to a vehicle control device, in the reply filed on May 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 20 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
Claims 21 – 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected unrelated invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 22, 2026
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a vehicle control device that generates a virtual image from a camera and processes a negative and positive value regarding left- and right-hand sides of a neutral reference line.
The limitation of determining the amount of use of each icon over a predetermined period of time, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “processing of calculation” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining a left- and right-hand side of an imaginary line while driving. Similarly, the limitation of determining a target trajectory, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “target trajectory” in the context of this claim encompasses the driver to continue on a path as intended. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform both the virtual image generation and trajectory determination. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating a virtual image received from a camera) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the virtual image generation and trajectory determination to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 8 – 12, 19 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipate by Itoh (US 2025/0171082).
Regarding Claim 1:
Itoh teaches a vehicle control device comprising: an input image acquirer that acquires an image (C) captured by a camera (51) directed to a front side viewing from a vehicle (90), as an input image; a target steering amount calculator (via 10) that calculates a target steering amount (via S6, paragraph 0037) for a steering mechanism (75) of the vehicle based on the input image; and a steering controller (71) that manipulates the steering mechanism to a positive side or a negative side based on the target steering amount, wherein the target steering amount calculator is configured to execute: processing of recognizing a travel path (via S1) of the vehicle based on the input image; processing of calculating at least either one of a positive-side area value (via H2, paragraph 0034) between a neutral reference line (WQ) determined virtually in the input image and a positive-side dividing line which is a boundary on a positive side of the travel path, and a negative-side area value (via 1) between the neutral reference line and a negative-side dividing line which is a boundary on a negative side of the travel path; and processing of calculating the target steering amount based on at least either one of the positive-side area value and the negative-side area value (paragraphs 0034 – 0040, Figs 3 – 4).
Regarding Claim 2:
Itoh teaches the target steering amount calculator calculates the target steering amount so as to become larger to a positive side as the positive-side area value becomes larger, and calculates the target steering amount so as to become larger to a negative side as the negative-side area value becomes larger (via S5, trajectory R, paragraph 0037 also describes the negative and positive side values).
Regarding Claim 8:
Itoh teaches the camera is provided at a center in a width direction of a body of the vehicle (Fig 2, 4), and wherein the target steering amount calculator, in a case of causing the vehicle to travel along within an own vehicle travel lane between the positive-side dividing line and the negative-side dividing line, is configured to execute processing of setting the neutral reference line at a center in a width direction of the input image (Figs 3 – 4, paragraphs 0047 – 0040).
Regarding Claim 9:
Itoh teaches the target steering amount calculator is configured to execute: processing of storing, as a center position, a position of the neutral reference line at which the positive-side area value and the negative-side area value are made equal when the vehicle is traveling at a center in a width direction of a straight road, and processing of setting the neutral reference line at the center position, in a case of causing the vehicle to travel along within an own vehicle travel lane between the positive-side dividing line and the negative-side dividing line (Fig 3, paragraphs 0037 – 0040).
Regarding Claim 10:
Itoh teaches the target steering amount calculator is configured to execute: processing to cause the neutral reference line to move at a predetermined speed to a positive side in the input image, in a case of causing the vehicle to travel from the own vehicle travel lane toward a positive-side adjacent travel lane which is adjacent to the positive-side dividing line; and processing of causing the neutral reference line to move at a predetermined speed to a negative side in the input image, in a case of causing the vehicle to travel from the own vehicle travel lane toward a negative-side adjacent travel lane which is adjacent to the negative-side dividing line (paragraph 0037 via radar, and via controller 12).
Regarding Claim 11:
Itoh teaches the target steering amount calculator is configured to execute: processing of causing the neutral reference line to move to a negative side in the input image, in a case of recognizing the positive-side dividing line and a positive-side obstacle hiding a part of the positive-side dividing line, based on the input image; and processing of causing the neutral reference line to move to a positive side in the input image, in a case of recognizing the negative-side dividing line and a negative-side obstacle hiding a part of the negative-side dividing line, based on the input image (paragraph 0027 via radar, and via controller 12).
Regarding Claim 12:
Itoh teaches the target steering amount calculator is configured to execute: processing of estimating the negative-side dividing line based on the positive-side dividing line, in a case of being able to recognize the positive-side dividing line and not being able to recognize the negative-side dividing line based on the input image; and processing of estimating the positive-side dividing line based on the negative-side dividing line, in a case of being able to recognize the negative-side dividing line and not being able to recognize the positive-side dividing line based on the input image (paragraph 0033, via 12).
Regarding Claim 19:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 20:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 7, 9 – 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights